Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 07/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses or Further Responses to Demands for Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 07/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses or Further Responses to Demands for Production of Documents in Department 54

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant State of California by and through the Department of General Services’ (“DGS”) motion to compel Cross-Defendants Joseph Giamanco, Jr., Enrico Cifelli, and DIVOC 91, LLC d/b/a River Capital Group Holdings (collectively, “Assignee Cross-Defendants”) to respond to, or serve further responses to, DGS’ Demand for Production of Documents, Set One is ruled upon as follows.

This action was initiated by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC (“Bear Mountain”) against DGS for breach of contract. On September 7, 2022, DGS filed a cross-complaint against Bear Mountain, the Assignee Cross-Defendants, and Chad Altieri Esquire PL d/b/a Altieri & Associates. The underlying dispute relates to a purchase order by DGS at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic for PPE from Bear Mountain. DGS alleges that Bear Mountain assigned the purchase order to Assignee Cross-Defendants, but neither Bear Mountain nor Assignee Cross-Defendants performed under the agreement by providing the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 07/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses or Further Responses to Demands for Production of Documents in Department 54

ordered PPE on the agreed upon schedule.

On February 10, 2025, DGS served the subject document requests on Assignee Cross- Defendants through their counsel. DGS later learned the Assignee Cross-Defendants’ counsel had changed his address, so on April 4, 2025, DGS re-served the subject requests. On May 14, 2025, Assignee Cross-Defendants served responses and produced documents. DGS contends that the responses are inadequate and assert improper general objections and that the document production was incomplete and included improper redactions. DGS’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Assignee Cross-Defendants but did not receive a response.

At the outset, the Court has not considered Bear Mountain’s opposition. DGS’ motion does not pertain to Bear Mountain. Indeed, this is acknowledged at the beginning of the opposition brief, but Bear Mountain felt “compelled to provide this limited opposition in order to address countless and repeated misstatements and outright falsehoods set forth by Cross-Complainant in their [sic] motion.” (Opp. MPA, p. 3:4-6.) None of the issues addressed in the opposition are relevant to the disposition of the motion, so the Court need not consider the arguments raised therein. Since Assignee Cross-Defendants have not filed an opposition, the Court deems the motion UNOPPOSED.

DGS’ motion is brought as a motion to compel responses or, alternatively, to compel further responses. That is because DGS contends that the verifications provided by Assignee Cross- Defendants are invalid as they do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. The responses are also not signed by counsel. (See Costantini Decl., Exh. 9.)

The Court agrees that the verifications are invalid. An unsworn statement must “(1), if executed within this state, state[] the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, state[] the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5.) Here, the verifications do not state the place of execution but also do not state that they are certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. (See Costantini Decl., Exh 9, pp. 13-15.)

Additionally, the fact that the responses are not signed by counsel renders the objections ineffective. “The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.250(c), emphasis added.) The Court deems counsel’s failure to sign the responses as a failure to preserve the objections. Thus, the Court also finds that the objections are waived. Failure to timely serve a response to discovery waives all objections and authorizes the propounding party to move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.) Here, not only are the responses not properly verified, but the objections are not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 07/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses or Further Responses to Demands for Production of Documents in Department 54

properly asserted and are thus waived.

Accordingly, DGS’ motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein and for the reasons stated in DGS’ separate statement. The Court agrees that the responses themselves, even if properly verified and even if the objections were properly asserted, are not Code-compliant.

DGS’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,500. (See Heyn Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 4.)

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers. DGS shall serve a copy of the signed order on Assignee Cross-Defendants’ counsel of record and shall file proof of service within 10 days of the Court’s signature.